Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

valderost writes "Out-law.com reports on a finding of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, in favor of an individual reselling Autodesk's AutoCAD software in 'his claim that he owned the software and had the right to sell it on.' The decision hinges on some technicalities in the Autodesk license and conflicting precedents involving a Vanessa Redgrave film, but it's good news for the idea that a software purchase is just that. 'The Court said that it had to follow [the film] case's precedent because it was older than another conflicting ruling, and that it could not choose a precedent based on the most desirable policy. "The court's decision today is not based on any policy judgment. Congress is both constitutionally and institutionally suited to render judgments on policy; courts generally are not," the Court ruled. "Precedent binds the court regardless of whether it would be good policy to ignore it."'"

No, the court is saying that it isn't expressing any opinion about what the law should be and is making that point very clear, probably so that no one will mistakenly point to this as a precedent of a court deciding that the law should be this way for software.

Dunno, while re-reading and re-reading the quotes I can not decide if they want to be as neutral as possible or if they would have preferred licensing. While I am not sure, I think they meant the latter.

If you buy a physical object, it's yours to do with it what you wish, including selling the object to the next person, via garage sale or ebay. I can understand why organizations like RIAA want to strip-away our property so they can make themselves richer, but not the judges. Judges should be on the side of the People and protecting our rights.

It's not nonsense at all. "Property rights" are what makes this whole thing work. We can ownthings and our toils will help enable that. If we work harder, we might be able to own moreor better things. Eventually those things might be valuable enough that we don't have to workat all and our things do all the work for us.

This is one way you get ahead in capitalism.

The promise of this is what keeps the drone, peons and proles with their shoulder to the grindstone.

Why would you not let folks own outright disks containing copyrighted software as well?

Just because I own a disk doesn't mean I own the copyright to the software on the disk, and that copyright prevents me from making copies (or public performances, or several other things explicitly listed by copyright law) without paying the copyright owner for permission to do so. While it does permit restrictions on making of copies, public performance, preparation of derivative works and the like, however, copyright la

>>>You can't hold software in your hand; you can only hold the media on which its stored.>>>If you want a blank disc, they are available, and no one is debating your right to own blank disc

I can't believe you're serious. (Trolling perhaps?) You didn't say it outright, but it's pretty clear you believe I can not sell my DVD of Final Fantasy 12, MS Word 2003, or Autodesk to another citizen. THAT is a violation of my property rights. If the manufacturers are going to RENT the software the

So the court, by mentioning the dictates of precedent in the first place, is implying that it thinks licensing is the preferred policy?

The Court was almost certainly responding to arguments put by both parties that were policy based. It was politely pointing out the reason why it just ignored all those arguments from both sides and focused purely on what the precedents say. Because that's the Court's job. In particular to the losing party it amounts to "and if you don't like it, go and bother your mom^WCongress instead".

Would have to read the full decision and/or the filingd by the parties to be sure though.

Most likely Autodesk argued that full ownership of software would hurt it's business. The article says as much, if you read between the lines. Of course, they neglected to mention that a mere license model hurts consumers, but since the court rejected the argument anyway, it's all good.

How does a license model hurt consumers? In this case, the only consumer that was protected was the guy who was selling copies of Autodesk on eBay. Since none of the consumers who bought these copies could authorize them, they were hurt by the seller violating the terms of the license agreement, and by the court for not protecting their consumer rights.

Most Electronic Design Automation software is licensed not sold. No one believes that they **BUY** a copy of Syno

"The Autodesk License is a hodgepodge of terms that, standing alone, support both a transfer of ownership and a mere license," said the ruling. "Autodesk expressly retains title to the 'Software and accompanying materials,' but it has no right to regain possession of the software or the 'accompanying materials'. Licensees pay a single up-front price for the software. Autodesk can require the destruction of the software, but only as consideration in the

Of course, the software is still covered by copyright and it's license, so you're really selling the license.

False. A second hand sale involves the sale of physical property. There is no exception for software. A "license" can refer to many things; in the context of software it tends to refer to a fictional concept created by the software industry, the implication being that one is required, typically per user, or even per feature. However, a second-hand copy of a piece of software is a lawfully produced co

What's a license and why do I need one? Isn't "I agree" simply an artistically decorated button to start the program?

This is not the case: simply saying "yes" is an agreement, with full legal consequences, provided it can be proven in court. With software, proving that you clicked "I agree" is much simpler. After all: without altering the program (which is not allowed without a license), the program won't install before you explicitly agree to the license.

This is not the case: simply saying "yes" is an agreement, with full legal consequences, provided it can be proven in court. With software, proving that you clicked "I agree" is much simpler. After all: without altering the program (which is not allowed without a license), the program won't install before you explicitly agree to the license.

It's a demand that you either click "I agree" on or you lose value of what you purchased. You are being coerced. The "value" is being held hostage after it has alrea

It's a demand that you either click "I agree" on or you lose value of what you purchased. You are being coerced. The "value" is being held hostage after it has already been paid for.

According to the UCITA, you can't legally agree to any license terms unless you can see the license, and the seller offers you your money back. If the seller doesn't offer you the money back, the situation is a bit complicated. The seller holds your money hostage, you hold the software hostage. Losing your money is wrong. Using the software without agreeing to the license is wrong. According to the UCITA, a court (and you, if you decide to use the software), would have to decide which is the bigger wrong, s

It's a demand that you either click "I agree" on or you lose value of what you purchased. You are being coerced. The "value" is being held hostage after it has already been paid for.

No, because you can return it for a full refund.

But "valid" in what sense? Is it a contract? It seems to meet none of the legal requirements of a contract. I get no consideration. I've already paid for it, I already own it, and I get nothing from the EULA (I gain from clicking the "I agree" button, but the EULA itself grants me

No, you get to use the software at the price you paid. That's your consideration.

Paid. Past tense. I had a sale contract to buy the product, and they sold it to me. From the wording on the box and the "reasonable man" standard, that includes using the contents of the box I bought. They can't then give me something I already own. It's not consideration for them to say "you already own this, we are going to give you nothing, but we are going to take away lots of things you can do now if you click disagree, like resell it, reverse engineer it, or whatever."

For the standard car analogy, it would be like buying a car, then, after you paid for it and took it home, someone from Ford knocks on your door and says you need to sign a contract saying that you will not drive the car over 55 (to keep their safety record good) and that you'll always get your oil changed at Ford dealerships at your own expense and never resell it, and if you don't agree, they will sabotage your car so you can't drive it. Feel free to keep it and Ford will keep your money, you just can't drive it. Would you say "yes, that's a reasonable EULA and I think it's a great consideration to let me use what I've already bought"? Or would you tell them to go to hell and use the product you've paid for in the manner advertised? Why can they, after the sale of the product, then apporach you and tell you that they are going to then reduce the value of the previous sale with no consideration?

After all: without altering the program (which is not allowed without a license)

Says who? If I own a copyrighted work, I'm entitled to do what I like with it, save for copying it. That includes modifying it. There is no difference here from me buying a book and scribbling all over it.

Depending on the software, you can also just extract the files without running the installer. Additionally, proving that you "agreed" to the licence needn't be nearly as simple; the user that uses the software isn't necessarily

"If I own a copyrighted work, I'm entitled to do what I like with it, save for copying it."

I would be interested to know where you live that has laws like this. I live in the United States, and the laws here are very, very different. There are all sorts of things that you cannot legally do that do not involve copying the work, including for example transcribing lyrics of songs and public performances. I also can't buy a book, replace the covers with new ones that list me as the author, and resell it.

The "general terms of business" are defined in law as a statutory contract. Ergo, even underage individuals can enter into a contract of simple trade.

If such terms were to be imposed as "general terms of business", some sort of contract would be signed at the time of purchase. Yet purchasing software involves nothing more than the default statutory contract of trade.

The nonsense found in EULAs has no such government endorsement. What's more, entering into a contract requires some sort

Clicking "yes" is not the same as saying yes, because: you're not saying it to anyone. You're not communicating. An agreement is something that happens between two parties, not a person and themselves, or a person and their own non-networked computer.

If some jurisdictions claim that buyers lose certain rights or their terms of use are governed strangely, ok. But it doesn't make sense for them to say that an agreement or contract happened, not even in a heavily one-sided

Clicking "yes" is not the same as saying yes, because: you're not saying it to anyone. You're not communicating. An agreement is something that happens between two parties, not a person and themselves, or a person and their own non-networked computer.

The agreement or non-agreement comes from the total of your behaviour. If you click "I agree" by mistake, but then don't install the software, then your action of not installing the software indicates quite clearly that you haven't agreed. If your cat jumps on the mouse button, you haven't agreed. If you wait patiently for your cat to jump on the mouse button (assuming your cat likes playing with your computer mouse), and you install the software as soon as the cat clicked "I agree", you have agreed even th

Not only must they be legibly available, either the product itself or the party selling it to you must actively inform you that there is a general terms of business applicable to the product. So when you go to the shop and pick up a copy of Vista, the click-through EULA you need to accept to install isn't worth anything unless either the box or the sales clerk made its contents available to you before or at the moment of purchase.

Courts have said otherwise. To be more precise, the contract between you and the manufacturer isn't completed when you hand over your money if the manufacturer said there were other conditions. In case of a click-through license, the manufacturer may have to tell you that acceptance of the license is necessary to close the deal, and then the deal is closed when you click the "I agree" button. For this to be legal, the terms must be available and clearly visible to you at the time you click "I agree", and th

Indeed. It seems like this court affirmed that the software was sold and NOT licensed yet the poster basically just popped up and said:

"Ok, yea, but, um, naturally the license still applies.".

No buddy, that's the whole issue. The user bought the software - he didn't license it. Copyright law merely protects duplication rights of the product. Once a legal copy has been created by the copyright holder, anyone is free to sell, use, destroy, or do what they like with that product, save making an illegal dupl

I actually develop games for Nintendo systems professionally. I got my start in the industry through homebrew. It's always been my belief that Nintendo actually LIKES homebrew on their consoles. It serves to train people on how to use their hardware. The problem is that it also usually means copyright infringement. They would take a lot of heat from the 3rd parties and their shareholders if they didn't at least put on a good show of fighting it.

Mostly because opening the can is a violation of the EULA, voids your warranty and forces you to rely on downloading 3rd party patches for your can as you can no longer connect to WormNet, the premiere Can o' Worms networking solution software that is required to run alongside your Can o' Worms at all times.

Not that this will ever happen, but, if the ramifications of this decision are taken to the next level, it could enforce the consumers' right to resell the license to a given software application.

This, in turn, could mean that one could exchange and resell licenses of downloaded games and other media. Of course, the industry will likely pay off any relevant political actors in the interests of piracy prevention long before this occurs.

Then again, software companies are much more open to this type of idea than they were ten years ago. Well, we can always hope.

huh? what? You can resell a download perfectly legally.. the problem is more typically finding a buyer. Of course, if there's any DRM on that download, it's illegal to break it.

I was referring to reselling the license, not the download itself. Actually, I was referring to giving the license away for monetary compensation or no compensation, depending on personal preference (just like a physical disc).

true that
i wish it was mandatory by the law to allow reselling with full rights transfer and creating obstacles would get smacked hard. There is need for real protection of user rights, companies have it way too easy to fuck with them. Right now they have a dozen of dirty tricks in their playbook to circumvent 1st sale doctrine and kill 2nd hand market - DRMs, steam like authorizations, binding products to user's account permanently and all that shit are there for exactly that purpose.
One can dream...

i wish it was mandatory by the law to allow reselling with full rights transfer and creating obstacles would get smacked hard.

You can't have it both ways. It's only one or the other: Either there is no DRM or there is no rights transfer.

If there is no DRM, and reselling of copyrighted content is legal, there is nothing stopping someone from downloading an MP3, making 5 copies of the file on his hard drive, and selling each of those 5 copies to someone else because there's nothing to verify the authenticity

What is fun is it is getting to where it is difficult if not impossible to resell the license when you even buy a physical copy, unless you sell every game on your account. You are basically buying a one time use key to add to your account and (sometimes) make the install process quicker.

Hell it's getting hard just to keep your purchases if you move between systems these days. I've been through 5 or 6 DVD players in my time, and about as many VCR's. All my discs or cassette's all work in any of them though.

Compare to digital media. Movies bought on an Xbox 360? Not only can I not take them with me to another brand of device, but if my current 360 dies I can't even take them to a new one. On the computer? Same thing. Used to be if I wanted to backup my files I copied them to a backup

My understanding is that in this particular case Autodesk was essentially marketing the software exactly like a product instead of something that is licensed, thereby they couldn't claim that the product was in effect being licensed. Does this have any effect on shrink-wrap licenses and/or regular software?

This is already European Law (which must be implemented in local laws in al member states). Once sold whithin the EU, you're free to resell your license.

The problem is in the details: if you buy software (i.e. a license to use it), you normally also get a bunch of other rights, like access to updates, maybe even the right to call someone. The law doesn't say that these rights are also transferrable (or transferred). So in most licenses, there's still plenty of "you cannot do this and that (resell, for example), or you will loose the right to such and so".

But the resale of the license to plainly use the software cannot be forbidden by contract in the EU.

What about a system like steam where even when you buy a physical copy it is linked (at least at one time) permanently to your account. Same with most MMORPGs I have seen that actually require purchase of the game, etc.

That wouldn't matter. All that would do is say that the chain of legal ownership got broken from whatever source he bought the software. If the license is not transferable by sale, then "I bought it to resell" has no more validity than "the software fall off the back of a truck."

This is good. There is much to be said for and against an "ownership society" but I can't recall publicly advocating our transformation into a "licensure society."

I have no doubt that the same people who are trying to outlaw analog recording devices are planning a campaign behind closed doors for the eradication of "ownership" as a concept in U. S. culture, but they would never dare to say it in public.

Software licensing made sense when software was a semi-custom low-volume craft product; when there were sm

One major consideration in that was the fact that the studio did not have the right, as it did in other agreements, to demand the return of the print.

The Court said that though the issue was complicated, software agreements were similar enough to those film agreements to act as a precedent.

Ha! So that's the "older' precedent? How about this? I walk into a grocery store, anonymously give cash to the cashier and walk out with a loaf of bread without having made any agreement at all, other than "I want the bread, here's some money." Retail software sales use the exact same transaction -- identical in every single way -- to what people have been doing for thousands of years. Thousands. And in all that time, Congress never bothered to pass a law that pulls a switcharoo on us and creates a difference between those transactions.

(Congress has passed some laws that creates some differences between what a person is allowed to do with a loaf of bread, versus a movie or software. But the sale itself, or giving rights to the original seller to demand it back? Nope. Some judges have created some new laws that treat the transactions differently, but Congress has kept out of that, so far.)

I hope that the courts, while considering themselves "bound by precedent", do not forget that they are also bound by statute.

If some high muckety muck court decides to be crazy and make a precedent by legislating some outlandish ruling from the bench, what recourse does a lower court have if neither party appeals it high enough for the error to be fixed?

Define ownership. You can own the physical (ever disappearing) media that the software comes from. You can own the rights to the software and its code. You can own a license to use the software. This is the problem and one that will be challenged in the future when software moves to pure digital distribution. Do you actually own what is on your hard drive? I say yes, but what happens when you have to reinstall and your only installer is some steam-like gateway that approves and disapproves of your access to said software? This is going to be a MAJOR shift your rights to copy software and make backups. The tide is already turning away from the consumer (some would say its long since been gone), but when you have no way to just reinstall software it might create some serious problems.

Like here is an easy example. You needed to reinstall windows (again!), but you ran out of installs on your oem key. Whoops. Gotta call microsoft and beg them to let you use the software you own. Next you go to install Photoshop with adobe's new digital distribution service (the only way to get CS5), but their server is down and you need to work on a project today. If you had a disk you could just install, but no, you as a paying customer get to be treated like a potential criminal. I know this is kind of extreme, but you see where I'm going and we are really almost at that point.

Sorry for the generalizations. I'm pretty much toast right now. Time for bed. Goodnight slashdotters!

I say yes, but what happens when you have to reinstall and your only installer is some steam-like gateway that approves and disapproves of your access to said software? This is going to be a MAJOR shift your rights to copy software and make backups.

True, but it makes sense that any physical copy that you have is exactly like any other physical object that you want to sell or give away. I think all this will do, though, is make software publishers move their content to purely online and charge a hefty premi

Extreme? No. I've been locked out of software I bought, probably because of trying to make it work under WINE with quite a few installs. Took them three days to answer mail (was on a weekend), I had said "fuck it" and downloaded DVD+crack long ago. I probably don't need to tell you what happened to my Stream games when the %#% cable company took a month and a half to fix my Internet. I do want to pay for the good stuff, what little there is of it, but that sort of thing makes me mad. Particularly because me buying something, despite having the full thing downloaded already, only "proves" that DRM works *rolls eyes*. No, it doesn't. DRM is and always will be pathetically useless. It might mean I actually like it and want more games/movies/music/series/whatever like that though. At least the music industry seems to have finally gotten the message even though they were dragged kicking and screaming into the DRM-free world.

The various cases on this matter make it clear that there are three different things involved. Read Title 17 Section 117.

You may own copyright in the software. This gives you the right to control what copies are made, with one exception. This, copyright ownership, is what people usually mean when they talk about owning the software. It is the same as a publisher owning copyright to a book. He may print and sell as many copies as he wants.

You may also own a retail copy. This is what Vernor finds, and what Softman found before that. It has been repeatedly argued by software suppliers that you do not own the copy, that you only own a license to use. It has now been found for the second time that you own it, and the criterion used is whether the supplier has any right to repossess. If not, the copy is yours.

We next come to copies made in way of use. If the software is not supplied 'live', ie running off the installation media, it must be installed. Installation constitutes copying. It would be illegal under copyright law without some explicit permission. In fact the sort of copying which also occurs during use when the software is read into memory was found illegal in the well known MAI case, until Title 17 S 1117 was revised as a result of this case.

The revisions provided that copies and modifications made or authorized by the owner which were essential to use with a machine (notice the article, "a" machine) are permitted. But 117 also provides that if you resell the copy you own, you may only sell with it the copies you have made in way of being essential to use, with the consent of the copyright holder.

So, to summarize the situation, when you buy a retail copy of software, you own that copy. You do not become the copyright holder, your right to make copies is limited by Title 17. You may make copies (or modifications) that are essential to use with "a" machine - by implication, the machine of your choice, not of the copyright holder's choice. But your rights over resale of those copies is limited.

Two things are sometimes argued about this.

(1) It is sometimes argued that you may only use a machine which is essential. For instance, you may not install OSX on a Dell, because a Dell is not an essential machine, you could equally well use a Mac. Wrong. The machine does not have to be essential, and the article is indefinite, "a" machine. What has to be essential is the copying.

(2) It is also sometimes argued that because you have no rights of resale of the copies made in way of being essential to use, the copyright holder owns them, and you do not. There is no ground for this view. The test of repossession does not suggest this. The copyright holder has no right of repossession of those copies, and you have a right to them in perpetuity with no further payments. The situation is, you own them but you have restricted rights of resale.

So where does this leave Psystar and OSX? In a very simple situation. If they installed without having transferred the ownership of the retail copy of OSX to the customer, they were in violation of copyright. If they were made when ownership of machine and copy had been transferred, they were permitted by 117 as having been authorized by the owner, and were not then resold, so no permission for transfer was required, as they were never transferred.

This means that there need not have been any violation of copyright, but there was of course a breach of the Apple EULA. Whether the term of that EULA which obliges you to buy your hardware from Apple is enforceable is a quite different matter. But as far as copyright goes, you are the owner of any retail copy of OSX, or MS Office, that you have lawfully acquired. There is nothing in copyright law to stop you installing it wherever you want, as long as you do not make more than one copy. It says "a" machine, remember.

Don't read too much into the word 'a'. It appears Congress wanted to limit the number of copies to however many are reasonably necessary for "an essential step in the utilization" or "for archival purposes". If it wanted to limit the number more specifically, it would have used the long form of the article: "one copy", and 117(b) would have begun with "The exact copy", not "Any exact copies".

People are sloppy because the meaning is usually clear from context. Whether I say I own SimCity or The City & the City (the ancient computer game and the excellent novel by China Mieville, respectively) no one imagines that I am talking about copyrights, because most people don't own any meaningful copyrights (I own the copyrights to my blog posts, but no one really gives a hoot). Vernacular English does not provide us with the tools to speak unambiguously about these matters.

Whoops. Gotta call microsoft and beg them to let you use the software you own.

I don't believe you've ever called Microsoft to get software activated. Unless by begging you mean answering "no" or "one" to the "is this installed on any other computers" or "how many computers is this installed on" questions. In that case your and my definition of the word are completely different.

I agree with you in that you shouldn't have to in either case but the phone activation is far from difficult and have never been de

And you just hit the nail right on the head with that simple statement, bravo. All this bullshit does is make the pirated version in EVERY WAY better than the "legitimate" version. Take my case for example, I have to fricking crack every. damned. single. game. I own. Why? Because XP X64 (my OS of choice) plays all the games, even the older ones beautifully while giving me access to my 8Gb of RAM but the ^&%$&^&$^&%$ DRM don't work, that's why!!! You get that stupid "insert disc in drive E:" bullshit. It IS in drive E:, you stupid piece of crap!

And God help you if you don't notice the sometimes invisible warning and get "starforced" as guess what? Their damned uninstaller don't work on x64 buddy! That's right, enjoy a day spent dual boot and hacking the reg to get rid of that festering turd, but as you pointed out TPB version works just fine on XP X64. But I think this guy [metacafe.com] (warning-language which you can't blame him for if you watch the video) says it better than I ever could.

Just give me one more Starfoce infection game makers, just one more, and yes it IS an infection, as a PC repairman I can tell you that a Starforce+Safedisc+SecuROM infection is nastier than most malware out today, and you can kiss my money goodbye. If my choices are paying for the "privilege" of getting kicked in the nuts or NOT paying and not getting kicked in the crotch or spending more time "enjoying the fun" of removing your broken DRM than playing your latest crappy $59 "extravaganza"? Well it'll be TPB for the win, and you'll have NO ONE to blame but yourself. Because I don't know about everyone else, but I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!

If you want to protest the use of Starforce/SecuROM/DRMdeJour, then good luck and more power to you. However, the way to do it is to not buy the game, and then NOT pirate it. Not buying it and then pirating it only serves to reinforce the idea that "teh evil pirates are stealing our softwares!" and that they need to lock it down to protect it.

Nice theory, except I ALREADY TRIED THAT with the RIAA and haven't bought a single disc from an RIAA artist (nor have I pirated from them) in a decade. What did we get? "Our sales are down and since our shit don't stink it has to be those filthy piratez! We want even more draconian laws!" which they get. So you see your argument doesn't hold water, because the *.A.As will just trot out some trumped up bullshit piracy numbers and use that as an excuse to get even MORE free money thanks to the taxpayers.

because the "artist" in the case of LHOOQ stuck a crazy price tag on his cheap penciled Mona Lisa and called it "art" whereas your putting up a non DRMed work actually helps the public who is getting buttraped? lets face it- with treasonous bribery now legal, pretty much anything that helps the public over a megacorp has got no chance in hell.

I am only glad that my grandfather that survived a wall being dropped on him by the Nazis isn't here to see how far we have fallen. Because I know seeing our "elected

when you start getting down to the actual rights that are transferred with a purchase of goods, if you leave it to the states, you will cause massive damage to interstate commerce. Those boobs can't even come up with consistent sentencing for crimes, there's no way they'll voluntarily adopt a single consistent set of rules over this unless it's done at the federal level.

If any readers still can't imagine what the problem is with that, think about it for a bit. Here's a few hints, imagine if a company in Maine sold software to people in all the states. In Texas they might be forced to provide updates for free for a period of 3 years, while in Ohio updates have a cost $1.00 but they only have to be available for 6 months. Now in Colorado you can resell your software, but in Florida you don't own it - it's all leased for a period of no more than 4 years. Getting messy already, and we've only covered 4 states. (Maine didn't count because I never said anything about their local laws on ownership/sales.)

By the way, if you are buying land in a state other than your own, check what the state laws are where you are buying it. Some states you get the works. Others, you don't get mineral rights. Some, you get water rights, and you might get mineral rights, but not oil rights, that's a seperate thing altogether. (Can you guess which states I'm talking about?)

In California you can buy beachfront property, and you get the beach. In Oregon (same coast, just farther north) you can still buy beachfront property, but the beach always has, and always will, belong to 'the people'. (Lots of Californian developers have gotten massively pissed over that when they tried to put up walls or fences...) The coast belonging to the people of Oregon is essential native traditions that were adopted into laws for Oregon. This is just a small example the differences that already occur, and you don't ship real estate across state lines, imagine how screwed up that would be.

Which is why the laws usually specify what they cover. There isn't any great need for things to be consistent, particularly in the examples you gave. Why would crimes committed in Alaska need to carry the same penalties as those in Kentucky? And if this doesn't scale for States, then why would it scale for Nations any better? Why don't we need to unify our laws with China, or vice-versa?

I'm sorry if I'm being dismissive, but most anti-State arguments are usually just based in frustration that not everyo

Companies like federal level laws because they tend to include a "Local laws are hereby no longer valid." It lets them focus on lobbying a single group of people who are frequently completely unconnected from the problems at hand. Doe

Copyright is granted under the IP clause of the Constitution, and its regulation given to Congress.This is the policy interest to which the court referred, i.e. Congress may step in and legislate that although copyright creates a divisible property interest which may be sold in part or whole, to other parties, the sale of a copy of software is, as a matter of law a (license or transfer of property right over that copy)All the court is saying is that the jurisprudence says that AutoDesk's own license says th

Yes, I also thought that was an odd thing to say. While this case is about copyright, and therefore federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, the contract law and sales law that it should be looking at will all be from the relevant state(s). Certainly, the leading cases on this issue have all been based heavily on the UCC, which is state law.

I suppose Congress could make some policy here, but they haven't yet, which leaves it to the states.

Until ALI manages to work an acceptable take on the Uniform Computer Information Transfer Act, though, i think the court was right to keep to federal copyright precedent. Also, it seems like the reference to 'Congress' was less in terms of the sales transaction, and more in terms of clearly delineating whether a property interest is created in the sale of a copy of software.

No, federal copyright law simply does not address whether a particular transaction is a sale of goods, a sale of goods subject to terms put forth after the goods and payment were exchanged, or if it was a contractual matter and not a sale at all. The court cannot look to copyright for the answer; it just isn't there. It is a matter of state law. Given that federal courts apply state law all the time, it shouldn't be a big deal. And it would be wrong to wait for a second attempt at updating the UCC. The cour

It leads to an interesting problem though. Suppose I sell you a copy of a GPL product and the source code on two separate CDs. You then sell Person B the binaries CD and he sells it to person C. Is Person B obliged to provide the source to Person C on request even though he isn't capable for doing this?

I assume you meant binaries instead of source code there. I would guess that yes, Person B must provide the source code to Person C. Person B probably could, however, turn around and nail you for failing to follow the terms of the GPL when you didn't provide Person B the source code when you sold the binaries CD. Exactly how a court would handle this situation, especially with regards to Person B not having to pay a huge amount of money for problems that you're responsible for, would be tough to predict.